Tom Slee of Whimsley Blog reports on the good, the bad and a bit of the ugly that he sees behind Wal-Mart’s “Always Low Price” strategy. Tom began his blog to help explain and promote his book entitled “No one Makes you shop at Wal-Mart.” It’s a book that I think I will find much with which I agree and disagree. And if the book is even half as good as the blog posts about Wal-Mart, I expect it to be one good and informing read. Money quote: The good thing about Wal-Mart stores is well-known, simple, and can be stated in three of the company's own words: Always Low Prices. The bad things about Wal-Mart are what it does to get those prices low. These are now also well known: cut costs remorselessly and exploit the benefits of scale. Few would argue with the claim that a low price is, by itself, a good thing." I know one who might ;-)

Hadashi feels "somewhat snarkily pleased that despite all its corporate might and yellow-bouncy-smiley-face power, Wally is admitting defeat and pulling out with over $1 billion in losses." Upon reflection, she also reflects on those feelings and recognizes in herself some of the same cultural arrogance that she imputes to Wal-Mart. Who have thought that contemplation on the trials and tribulations of the world’s largest retailer could lead to a moment of self-realization? On a totally unrelated note, the banner pic on Hadashi’s blog is outstanding and worth a visit for that reason alone.

It’s been said that there are only two certainties in life- death and taxes. Not everyone agrees. The late soul singer Marvin Gaye had a hit record in the 1970's entitled "Trouble Man." He said "There's only three things That's for sure- Taxes, death and trouble.” Jeff Hess over a Writing on the Wal doesn’t believe the old adage either. His post concerns the efforts by 18 of the nation’s richest families to avoid paying estate taxes. Among the “cabal of the uber wealthy” is the Walton family, the source of whose wealth is Wal-Mart. Here’s Jeff’s explanation on why we should care about Wal-Mart’s attempt to reduce the number of life’s inevitabilities to one: So why single out Wal Mart and the Walton family in any of this? Am I simply a Wal Mart-hating Marxist envious of their success? No. This is important because it is further evidence that Wal Mart and the Walton family are no longer simply acting as bad corporate citizens in our Republic. Instead they are acting as an independent, un-elected body setting national tax policy and creating legislation. Not since the days of John D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil has one family wielded this much power. And it’s not good for the Republic that I love. To me it sounds like the Waltons are exercising their first amendent rights to petition the government concerning grievances and that is exercising his frist amendent right to speak out against it- two things which are good for the Republic we both love.

John of MarathonPundit takes issue with Chicago's recent "living wage" ordinance. To his mind, the result will be that retail purchases will continue to be transferred to the web and the suburbs and that the city, already severely under-stored, will remain that way. Liberal activists, columnists, and bloggers are claiming Wal-Mart and Target are bluffing when the retail behemoths state they'll cut back or cancel their expansion moves into the Second City. My hunch is they're not. Look for Wal-Mart to create a "big box" necklace along the borders of America's third most-populous city if the "big box" ordinance stands.

Professor Bainbridge posted on the demise of Maryland’s Wal-Mart Healthcare law. That law required that “any company with more than 10,000 employees must spend at least 8 percent of their payroll on health benefits or put the money directly into the state's health program for the poor.” As the Professor notes, though Wal-Mart was not named specifically in the bill, “no other employer was large enough to satisfy the text set out in the statute.” Interestingly, the law was not invalidated on these grounds. The Professor explains.

Jack Yoest notes how low anti-Wal-Mart protesters were willing to sink last Christmas. According to the article Washington Times article he cites: “[U]nion-sponsored protesters handed out empty, gift-wrapped boxes to children and made them cry...the arrests of...the protesters may have been ...a ...strategy designed by Big Labor-backed WakeUpWalMart.com.” Perhaps Jack should have named this one "How Low can YOU go?" or "Always (be)Low the Belt."

Smilerz has concerns with the larger implications of cities, states, and municipalities attempting to pass laws that punish Wal-Mart for its success. “If a policy is good it should affect everyone equally (isn’t that what the Equal Protection clause was supposed to accomplish?) whether its loopholes to avoid restrictive regulation or, as in this case, regulation that can only be applied to a single party.”

MP Turner of Curiouser and Curiouser asks “What is going on at Wal-Mart?” He wonders about the wisdom and effect of their new shoplifting policy, one that strikes him as a tad too permissive. Money quote: So, from what I can gather, this is purely a financial and political move. As the manager said, it costs him money to process a low-dollar theft and he loses the difference. And local governments are after all squawking about the extra load on its meager police forces. The only problem with that is that Sam Walton would have none of it. Somehow I feel inclined to agree. But then again, sometimes founders have trouble keeping up with the times.